I live in a country full of superstitious twits

I agree with you that the highest moral ground is to not stand in judgement - I don't judge anyone's morality, to each their own. I have my own life to worry about. My point was that if a person's very definition of morality is based in their religious faith and the teachings of that religion, then it is logical that they would view someone who rejects those teachings as less moral than they are, since they define morality in a particular way. It is not a weak argument from the standpoint that their morality and religion are intrinsic to one another.

I don't agree with that philosophy. Hell I don't even believe in organized religion, though I do believe in God. Is it right to view someone a "less moral"? It's all relative I suppose - it is simply an opinion that someone is less moral - it doesn't make them so, since no one else can define your own morality. Now when you have a situation where someone is discriminated against based upon the view that they are somehow lesser, then that is a different situation.

Gotcha. Now we understand each other

Moral principles are tested by their consequences. Nothing more, nothing less. The ultimate goal is peace and equality and to live your life by the manner of your own choosing as long as you're not infringing on other's rights to do the same or causing them harm.

Is there any part of that with which you'd disagree?

Is it not bigotry if they view themselves morally superior to others because their religion tells them they are?

I think it would be considered bigotry if they were broadcasting to everyone that they were morally superior rather than just keeping it to themselves

(yes, I know it's still bigotry)

Why yes! Well... I may kinda-sorta agree, but for different reasons probably. This part:

I'm not sure where you got this, or for that matter why it is your belief that everyone else should also agree with this value statement. This may be your ultimate goal, if that is what you believe. (Which happens to be fine by me, I might add.) But as relates to my previous post-full-of-questions, I'm not sure why this is not "more mere opinion."

Other people may believe that causing different people harm is good and fun, for instance.

Not really, that's just playing for the home team. It's the intolerance of others that makes a bigot.

I think the golden rule is supported by common sense, and I don't believe anyone wants harm done to them, do they? So believing that causing harm to others if fine but not wanting it done to you would be logically inconsistent, would it not?

I'm not sure I follow, Ananda. Are you being sarcastic?

That's from a sports analogy. What I mean is you can feel that your own team is the best, for whatever reason, without hating the other team or treating them unfairly.

Similarly an interfaith council is able to have ministers and rabbis who remain utterly committed to teaching their own flocks their own particular doctrine, all the while being great friends with each other.

you talk about lagging in social acceptance as if people were being held back for eing athiest. dude, no one can even tell you are athiest. people can tell if you are coloured or gay or a woman or disabled. athiests are not a down trodden people. that is why your claim of oppression to parry accusations of being a bigot are so ridiculous. i have never been turned down from a job or kicked out of a store or had to ride on the back of a bus or physically assaulted for not being religious. if this has happened to you, maybe you are not in america. maybe you are in afghanistan.

secondly, your lack of critical thinking leads you to ignore the basis of this study - that is the act of the researchers. you assume the neutrality of research when in fact the researchers have framed the results through their questions. they ask people "do you trust athiests more or less than religious people" and of course, even someone with the slightest favouring for one will produce the same result as a full blown bigot. let's say these social "scientists" asked you "who do trust more?" you would have to say athiests. because you think religious people are irrational. doesn't that make you a bigot/twit?

meanwhile... this is the pr campaign you run for athiests:


juxtapose that with this:


not only do you yourself set the terms for defining yourself as a bigot, you are not exactly portraying anything more than complete ignorance about the role of religion.


codified? most religions?

meanwhile, humanists spent the latter part of the 19th century measuring peoples skull caps to determine their intelligence in a scientific manner, proving women are stupid because they have smaller brains. i guess the bell curve must be a best seller in the humanist reading list. it is after all a scientific study on teh intelligence of african americans. should wewe judge all humanists from the message of a few?

if someone says any of these people are idiots, it doesn't mean they are a jackass. it means they are a moron.

while the statement is not without merit or value to everyone, it clearly shows that morality is emergent from values. there is no reason to assume that peace and equality are the ultimate goal for everyone. or even anyone at all times in all places.

morality is a shifting terrain and it's socially negotiated. i realize now that you don't understand this. that is why i now retract my harsh accusation of willful bigotry. instead, i will just say, you are just too naive to know any better.

Of course I understand that, Jauani. If I didn't believe that morality is fluid and a product of society I wouldn't be arguing against those who believe it's divinely inspired and that their's is superior because their holy book says it is (you know, those books that say you should be killed for being an infidel?). We've had a few thousand years to witness the consequences of that mode of thinking and it hasn't been pretty.

You've now pinned the needle on my irony meter since you oringinally came into the thread to attack me for impuning the intelligence of others. Thanks for demonstrating your hyocricy yet again. You really are a hoot.

and yet you seem pretty confident about your superior rational humanist morality over the god fearing tribalistic morality. sorry - outvoted 97 to 3

i entered this thread to note that you are a bigot but i'm not making any bones about impuning your intelligence, whereas you just are too naive to realize you are a bigot.

you know what chip, to give you a chance to prove to us all how knowledgeable you are, how about giving us bibliographic information so we can all look up these religious texts for those messages of violence against athiests and non believers.

particularly i'm interested in these holy scriptures:

torah
new testament
koran
vedas and upanishads
sutras

if indeed you can illustrate that the implicit or literal message of "most religions" is not to love and nurture one another, but to kill athiests, i will retract everything i've ever said and take a seven year exile from these forums.



but since the arrival of humanism, we've known a golden age of peace and prosperity!

Alrighty then. You obviously have the moral highground as you've so eloquently expressed *snicker*

Believing that your religion makes you superior to others is no different than believing your skin color, nationality, sexual preference, or country of origin makes you superior. It's tribalism. I'm sorry that concept it beyond you. I do not believe that I am superior to others based on my belief system. I do however believe that humanism is a superior moral code since it's based on the idea of all people being equal. That does not equate to me believing that I am more moral than any particular religious person. I know that distinction is difficult for your narrow mind to grasp. People are equal. Ideas are not. Or are you going to tell me you find all philosopnies equal? No one can say that with a straight face.

I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Ananda earlier:



Pick the one you think is better.

Nice use of reductio ad absurdum. I didn't claim that all holy books instruct their followers to kill infidels, but of course you knew that. I should have been clearer however. Why don't you do your own homework and show me one that doesn't claim moral superiority since that's what we're talking about.

I'll tell you what secular humaisn has to say about it. Feel free to compare and contrast and then pretend you don't find one of them superior to the others, or is that okay so long as you don't speak it aloud?



And while you're at it why don't you write me a ten page essay on your own morality, what you base it on, and how you arrived at it, then paint my house and make me a sandwich.

Let's start collecting writings that might help you meet Jauani's challenge.

Psalm 1

Blessed are the man and the woman
who have grown beyond their greed
and have put an end to their hatred
and no longer nourish illusions.

But they delight in the way things are
and keep their hearts open, day and night.

They are like trees planted near flowing rivers,
which bear fruit when they are ready.

Their leaves will not fall or wither.
Everything they do will succeed.

Clearly here is a passage singling out a particular group as a chosen elite.

you did claim that "most religions" are this and that and that holy scriptures instruct the killing of infidels like me.

why don't you just respond to all of the quotes i have of you making bigoted remarks instead of posting ad hominems like religious groups kill infidels.

and when you do, please send me the measurements of your skull so i can determine what reading level i should write my essay at.

Chip, with all due respect, when you employ a qualifier, like "better" you are perpetuating the problem.

godwin's law evoked. i'm moving on

It is good to bring a superstition such as this to fruition as early as possible in a thread. This way, superstitious twits will vacate the thread, if not the forum!

I should be clear that I'm speaking of my own opinion about what constitutes a sound moral philosophy. Everyone has a moral system that they arrived at somehow. Do you just pluck something out of thin air without weighing it against any other modes of thought? I'm not talking in absolutes. I'm simply saying that I personally find a moral system based on equality regardless of religion, race, gender, etc. to be more appealing and for my money, more equitable than any other.

The point I was trying to make is that it's disingenous for anyone to pretend that they don't weigh these things in terms of their own internal scale and arrive at something that they consider better than the alternatives. Does that make them a bigot by definition if they state their opinions on the matter? I don't think so. And doesn't holding any moral philosophy necessitate disagreeing with the moral philosophy of others since we don't all agree on it?

How can we evolve towards greater equality if we can't discuss it honestly and be open to change? Any philosphy that's based on the idea of immutable correctness can't evolve by definition. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with my philosophy as long as it's open for frank and honest discussion. Religion isn't really open for discussion in our culture without the dissenter being accused of religion bashing, intolerance, and bigotry. People have no such qualms with humanism. It's mutable, and because of that, for me, it's preferable. Religion tends to deal in absolutes. Humanism deals in compromises.

And once again, just so it's clear, these are my opinions. I'm telling you what I think, not declaring that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.